Prison Phone Justice

Contents
Report of the Director..................................................................................................................................... 5
Reporting Requirements of the Statute........................................................................................................... 6
Regulations..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Judges.................................................................................................. 7	
Authorized Lengths of Intercepts............................................................................................................. 7	
Locations................................................................................................................................................. 8
	 Offenses................................................................................................................................................... 9
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Prosecuting Officials............................................................................. 9
	 Nature of Intercepts................................................................................................................................. 9
	 Costs of Intercepts................................................................................................................................. 11
	 Arrests and Convictions......................................................................................................................... 12
Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1997 Through 2007................................................... 12
	 Supplementary Reports.......................................................................................................................... 13

Text Tables
Table 1
Jurisdictions With Statutes Authorizing the Interception
of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications ....................................................................................... 14
Table 2
Intercept Orders Issued by Judges During Calendar Year 2007.............................................................. 15
Table 3
Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted . ................................................ 19
Table 4
Summary of Interceptions of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications .............................................. 23
Table 5
	 Average Cost per Order ......................................................................................................................... 26
Table 6
	 Types of Surveillance Used, Arrests, and Convictions
	 for Intercepts Installed .......................................................................................................................... 30
Table 7
	 Authorized Intercepts Granted Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2519................................................................... 34
Table 8
Summary of Supplementary Reports for Intercepts
Terminated in Calendar Years 2000 Through 2006................................................................................ 35
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1997 Through 2007....................................................................................................... 39



Appendix Tables
Table A-1: United States District Courts
Report by Judges.................................................................................................................................... 40
Table A-2: United States District Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors.................................................................................................... 92
Table B-1: State Courts
Report by Judges.................................................................................................................................. 110
Table B-2: State Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors.................................................................................................. 282



Report of the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts
on
Applications for Orders Authorizing or Approving
the Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications
The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 requires the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts (AO) to report to Congress the number and nature of federal and state applications for orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The statute requires that specific
information be provided to the AO, including the offense(s) under investigation, the location of the intercept, the
cost of the surveillance, and the number of arrests, trials, and convictions that directly result from the surveillance. This report covers intercepts concluded between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, and provides
supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts concluded in prior years.
A total of 2,208 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2007, an increase of 20
percent compared to the number terminated in 2006. The number of applications for orders by federal authorities
fell less than 1 percent to 457. The number of applications reported by state prosecuting officials grew 27 percent
to 1,751, with 24 states providing reports, 1 more than in 2006. Installed wiretaps were in operation an average
of 44 days per wiretap in 2007, compared to 40 days in 2006. The average number of persons whose communications were intercepted decreased from 122 per wiretap order in 2006 to 94 per wiretap order in 2007. The
average percentage of intercepted communications that were incriminating was 30 percent in 2007, compared to
20 percent in 2006.
Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C. 2519(2)(b) to require that reporting should reflect the number of
wiretap applications granted for which encryption was encountered and whether such encryption prevented law
enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted pursuant to the court orders. In
2007, no instances were reported of encryption encountered during any federal or state wiretap.
The appendix tables of this report list all intercepts reported by judges and prosecuting officials for 2007.
Appendix Table A-1 shows reports filed by federal judges and federal prosecuting officials. Appendix Table B-1
presents the same information for state judges and state prosecuting officials. Appendix Tables A-2 and B-2 contain information from the supplementary reports submitted by prosecuting officials about additional arrests and
trials in 2007 arising from intercepts initially reported in prior years.
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2519(2) provides that prosecutors must submit wiretap reports to the AO no later
than January 31 of each year. This office, as is customary, sends a letter to the appropriate officials every year reminding them of the statutory mandate. Nevertheless, each year reports are received after the deadline has passed,
and the filing of some reports may be delayed to avoid jeopardizing ongoing investigations. A total of 56 state and
local prosecutors’ reports were missing in 2007, compared to 96 in 2006. Information received after the deadline
will be included in next year’s Wiretap Report. The AO is grateful for the cooperation and the prompt response we
received from many officials around the nation.

		James C. Duff
		Director
April 2008


Applications for Orders Authorizing
or Approving the Interception of Wire, Oral,
or Electronic Communications
tion to which a police officer or police informant is a
party, or the use of a body microphone. Also, no report
to the AO is required for the use of a pen register (a
device attached to a telephone line that records or
decodes impulses identifying the numbers dialed from
that line) unless the pen register is used in conjunction
with any wiretap devices whose use must be reported.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3126, the U.S. Department of
Justice collects and reports data on pen registers and
trap and trace devices.

Reporting Requirements of
the Statute
Each federal and state judge is required to file
a written report with the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) on each
application for an order authorizing the interception of
a wire, oral, or electronic communication (18 U.S.C.
2519(1)). This report is to be furnished within 30 days
of the denial of the application or the expiration of the
court order (after all extensions have expired). The
report must include the name of the official who applied for the order, the offense under investigation, the
type of interception device, the general location of the
device, and the duration of the authorized intercept.
Prosecuting officials who applied for interception
orders are required to submit reports to the AO each
January on all orders that were terminated during the
previous calendar year. These reports contain information related to the cost of each intercept, the number
of days the intercept device was actually in operation,
the total number of intercepts, and the number of
incriminating intercepts recorded. Results such as arrests, trials, convictions, and the number of motions to
suppress evidence related directly to the use of intercepts also are noted.
Neither the judges’ reports nor the prosecuting officials’ reports contain the names, addresses, or
phone numbers of the parties investigated. The AO is
not authorized to collect this information.
This report tabulates the number of applications for interceptions that were granted or denied, as
reported by judges, as well as the number of authorizations for which interception devices were installed,
as reported by prosecuting officials. No statistics are
available on the number of devices installed for each
authorized order. This report does not include interceptions regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
No report to the AO is required when an order is
issued with the consent of one of the principal parties
to the communication. Examples of such situations
include the use of a wire interception to investigate
obscene phone calls, the interception of a communica-

Regulations
The Director of the AO is empowered to develop
and revise the reporting regulations and reporting
forms for collecting information on intercepts. Copies
of the regulations, the reporting forms, and the federal
wiretapping statute may be obtained by writing to
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
Statistics Division, Washington, D.C. 20544.
The Attorney General of the United States, the
Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney
General, any Assistant Attorney General, any acting
Assistant Attorney General, or any specially designated
Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal
Division of the Department of Justice may authorize an
application to a federal judge for an order authorizing
the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. On the state level, applications are made by
a prosecuting attorney “if such attorney is authorized
by a statute of that State to make application to a State
court judge of competent jurisdiction.”
Many wiretap orders are related to large-scale
criminal investigations that cross county and state
boundaries. Consequently, arrests, trials, and convictions resulting from these interceptions often do not
occur within the same year as the installation of the
intercept device. Under 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials must file supplementary reports on additional court or police activity that occurs as a result
of intercepts reported in prior years. Appendix Tables
A-2 and B-2 describe the additional activity reported
by prosecuting officials in their supplementary reports.
Table 1 shows that 47 jurisdictions (the federal
government, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Is

lands, and 44 states) currently have laws that authorize
courts to issue orders permitting wire, oral, or electronic surveillance. During 2007, a total of 25 jurisdictions reported using at least one of these three types of
surveillance as an investigative tool.

applications were denied. Compared to the number
approved during 2006, the number of applications
reported as approved by federal judges in 2007 fell less
than 1 percent. The number of applications approved
by state judges rose 27 percent. Wiretap applications
in California (560 applications), New York (518 applications), New Jersey (200 applications), and Maryland (108 applications) accounted for 79 percent of all
applications approved by state judges. The number of
states reporting wiretap activity was higher than the
number for last year (24 states reported such activity
in 2007, compared to 23 in 2006). In 2007, a total of
117 separate state jurisdictions (including counties,
cities, and judicial districts) submitted reports, which
is 13 more than the total for 2006.

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Judges
Data on applications for wiretaps terminated
during calendar year 2007 appear in Appendix Tables
A-1 (federal) and B-1 (state). The reporting numbers
used in the appendix tables are reference numbers assigned by the AO; these numbers do not correspond to
the authorization or application numbers used by the
reporting jurisdictions. The same reporting number is
used for any supplemental information reported for
a communications intercept in future volumes of the
Wiretap Report.
The number of wiretaps reported increased 20
percent in 2007. A total of 2,208 applications were
reported as authorized in 2007, including 457 submitted to federal judges and 1,751 to state judges. No

Authorized Lengths of Intercepts
Table 2 presents the number of intercept orders
issued in each jurisdiction that provided reports,
the number of amended intercept orders issued, the
number of extensions granted, the average lengths of
the original authorizations and their extensions, the
total number of days the intercepts actually were in

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Number of Authorizations
2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
1997

1998

1999 2000

2001

2002

2003 2004

2005

Calendar Year
F

Federal

State



e

2006

2007

operation, and the nature of the location where each
interception of communications occurred. Most state
laws limit the period of surveillance under an original
order to 30 days. This period, however, can be lengthened by one or more extensions if the authorizing
judge determines that additional time for surveillance
is warranted.
During 2007, the average length of an original
authorization was 29 days, the same average length as
in 2006. A total of 1,701 extensions were requested
and authorized in 2007, an increase of 39 percent.
The average length of an extension remained unchanged at 29 days. The longest federal intercept
occurred in the District of Colorado, where an original 30-day order was extended 7 times to complete
a 233-day wiretap used in a narcotics investigation.
Among state wiretaps terminating during 2007, the
longest was used in a narcotics investigation conducted in Queens County, New York; this wiretap,
in use for 556 days, required the original order to be
extended 18 times. In contrast, 17 federal intercepts
and 60 state intercepts were in operation for less than
a week.

Federal Wiretaps
The Department of Justice has indicated that
it examined the reported use of wiretaps in
federal investigations for this year’s report
to Congress and has provided the following
comments:
In recent years, to avoid reporting
wiretap data involving sensitive
and/or sealed matters, the federal
law enforcement agencies and the
Department of Justice have
exercised special scrutiny when
submitting information to the
Administrative Office of the United
States Courts. Statistics indicate
that if all intercepts undertaken for
federal investigations in 2007 were
reported, the 2007 Wiretap Report
would not reflect any decrease in
the use of court-approved
electronic surveillance by the
agencies. Any matters that could
not be included in the 2007 data
should be reported in future
editions of the Wiretap Report as
soon as the underlying
investigations are completed and/
or the matters become unsealed.

Locations
The most common location specified in wiretap
applications authorized in 2007 was “portable device,
carried by/on individual,” a category included for the
first time in the 2000 Wiretap Report. This category
was added because wiretaps authorized for devices
such as portable digital pagers and cellular telephones
did not fit readily into the location categories provided prior to 2000. Since that time, the proportion of
wiretaps involving fixed locations has declined as the
use of mobile communications devices has become
more prevalent. Table 2 shows that in 2007, a total of
94 percent (2,080 wiretaps) of all intercepts authorized involved portable devices such as these, which
are not limited to fixed locations. This is a slight
increase from 2006, when 92 percent of all intercepts
involved portable devices.
The next most common specific location for the
placement of wiretaps in 2007 was a “personal residence,” a type of location that includes single-family
houses, as well as row houses, apartments, and other
multi-family dwellings. Table 2 shows that in 2007, a
total of 1 percent (27 wiretaps) of all intercept devices
were authorized for personal residences. Combinations of locations were cited in 36 federal and state

applications (2 percent of the total). Twenty-eight
wiretaps were authorized for “other” locations, which
included such places as prisons, pay telephones in
public areas, and motor vehicles. Seven wiretaps were
authorized for business establishments such as offices,
restaurants, and hotels. Together, “other” and business
establishments accounted for 2 percent of all intercepts authorized.
Pursuant to the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986, a specific location need not be
cited if the application contains a statement explaining why such specification is not practical or shows “a
purpose, on the part of that person (under investigation), to thwart interception by changing facilities”


was specified in 4 percent of applications as the most
serious offense under investigation. The categories of
gambling (55 orders) and larceny/theft/robbery (36
orders) each were specified in 2 percent of applications. Two other offense categories in Table 3 with
significant totals were corruption (32 orders) and
conspiracy (26 orders).

(see 18 U.S.C. 2518 (11)). In these cases, prosecutors
use “roving” wiretaps to target a specific person rather
than a specific telephone or location. The Intelligence
Authorization Act of 1999, enacted on October 20,
1998, amended 18 U.S.C. 2518 (11)(b) to provide
that a specific facility need not be cited “if there is
probable cause to believe that actions by the person
under investigation could have the effect of thwarting
interception from a specified facility.” The amendment
also specifies that “the order authorizing or approving the interception is limited to interception only
for such time as it is reasonable to presume that the
person identified in the application is or was reasonably proximate to the instrument through which such
communication will be or was transmitted.”
For 2007, authorizations for 21 wiretaps indicated approval with a relaxed specification order,
meaning they were considered roving wiretaps. This
is an increase from 2006, when 15 wiretaps were reported as roving wiretaps. All 21 roving wiretaps were
reported by state authorities: 14 were used in narcotics investigations, 6 in racketeering investigations, and
1 in a murder investigation.

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Prosecuting
Officials
In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials must submit reports to the AO no later
than January 31 of each year for intercepts terminated
during the previous calendar year. Appendix Tables
A-1 and B-1 contain information from all prosecutors’ reports submitted for 2007. Judges submitted 56
reports for which the AO received no corresponding
reports from prosecuting officials. For these authorizations, the entry “NP” (no prosecutor’s report) appears
in the appendix tables. Some of the prosecutors’
reports may have been received too late to include
in this report, and some prosecutors delayed filing
reports to avoid jeopardizing ongoing investigations.
Information received after the deadline will be included in next year’s Wiretap Report.

Offenses
Violations of drug laws and homicide/assault
were the two most prevalent types of offenses investigated through communications intercepts. Racketeering was the third most frequently recorded offense
category, and gambling the fourth. Table 3 indicates
that 81 percent of all applications for intercepts
(1,792 wiretaps) authorized in 2007 cited a drug
offense as the most serious offense under investigation. Many applications for court orders indicated
that several criminal offenses were under investigation, but Table 3 includes only the most serious
criminal offense named in an application. The use
of federal intercepts to conduct drug investigations
was most common in the Southern District of Texas
(40 applications), the Eastern District of New York
(35 applications), and the Southern District of New
York (33 applications). On the state level, the largest
numbers of drug-related intercepts were reported by
Los Angeles County of California (257 applications),
Queens County of New York (162 applications), and
San Diego County of California (120 applications).
Nationwide, homicide/assault (132 orders) was specified in 6 percent of applications as the most serious
offense under investigation. Racketeering (98 orders)

Nature of Intercepts
Of the 2,208 communication interceptions
authorized in 2007, reports submitted by prosecutors indicated that intercept devices were installed
and results were reported in conjunction with a total
of 2,119 orders. As shown in Table 2, orders for 33
wiretaps were approved for which no wiretaps actually were installed, and results from 56 wiretap orders
were not available for reporting by the prosecutors.
Table 4 presents information on the average number
of intercepts per order, the number of persons whose
communications were intercepted, the total number
of communications intercepted, and the number of
incriminating intercepts. Wiretaps varied extensively
with respect to the above characteristics.
In 2007, installed wiretaps were in operation
an average of 44 days, 4 days longer than the average
number of days wiretaps were in operation in 2006.
The federal wiretap with the most intercepts occurred
in the Western District of Louisiana, where a narcot

Drugs as the Major Offense
2,000
1,792

1,433

1,500

1,473

1,308
1,167

1,000

870 955

978

374

372

500
316

0
1997 1998

1,104
1,052

894

402
324

306

338

1999 2000 2001

2002

2003

296

340

2004

2005

366

416

2006 2007

Calendar Year
Drugs
Other Offenses

ics investigation involving the interception of cellular
telephone communications resulted in the interception
of 27,450 messages over 30 days. The federal wiretap
with the second highest number of intercepts, also a
cellular telephone wiretap, occurred in the Northern
District of Illinois as part of a fraud investigation; this
wiretap was active for 82 days and resulted in a total
of 25,223 interceptions. The federal wiretap with the
second highest number of interceptions per day, after
the Western District of Louisiana at 915 per day, also
involved cellular telephone intercepts. This wiretap
lasted 30 days and was used in a narcotics investigation in the District of Utah, which produced an average of 543 interceptions per day.
The state wiretap with the most intercepts occurred in Queens County, New York, where a 363-day
wiretap used in a narcotics investigation involving
the interception of cellular telephone communications resulted in the interception of 185,600 messages,
100,000 of which were incriminating. Ventura County
in California reported the state wiretap with the highest number of interceptions per day. In that case, a

13-day cellular telephone wiretap produced an average
of 1,909 intercepts per day for a narcotics investigation. A second wiretap in Ventura County lasted 25
days and generated 992 cellular telephone intercepts
per day.
Nationwide, in 2007 the average number of
persons whose communications were intercepted per
order in which intercepts were installed was 94, and
the average number of communications intercepted
was 3,106 per wiretap. An average of 920 intercepts
per installed wiretap produced incriminating evidence.
The average percentage of incriminating intercepts per
order increased from 20 percent in 2006 to 30 percent
in 2007.
The three major categories of surveillance are
wire communications, oral communications, and
electronic communications. In the early years of
wiretap reporting, nearly all intercepts involved telephone (wire) surveillance, primarily communications
made via conventional telephone lines; the remainder
involved microphone (oral) surveillance or a combination of wire and oral interception. With the passage of
10

the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, a
third category was added for the reporting of electronic communications, which most commonly involve
digital-display paging devices or fax machines, but also
may include some computer transmissions.
Table 6 presents the type of surveillance method
used for each intercept installed. The most common
method of surveillance reported was “phone wire communication,” which includes all telephones (land line,
cellular, cordless, and mobile). Telephone wiretaps
accounted for 94 percent (1,998 cases) of intercepts
installed in 2007.
The next most common method of surveillance
reported was the oral wiretap, including microphones.
Oral wiretaps were used in 1 percent of intercepts
(20 cases). The electronic wiretap, which includes
devices such as digital display pagers, voice pagers,
fax machines, and transmissions via computer such
as electronic mail, accounted for less than 1 percent
(15 cases) of intercepts installed in 2007; 9 of these
involved computers, and 4 involved other electronic
devices. A combination of surveillance methods was
used in 4 percent of intercepts (86 cases); of these
combination intercepts, 90 percent (78 cases) included

a mobile/cellular telephone as one of the devices monitored.
Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C.
2519(2)(b) in 2001 to require that reporting should
reflect the number of wiretap applications granted in
which encryption was encountered and whether such
encryption prevented law enforcement officials from
obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted
pursuant to the court orders. In 2007, no instances
were reported of encryption encountered during any
federal or state wiretap.

Costs of Intercepts
Table 5 provides a summary of expenses related
to intercept orders in 2007. The expenditures noted
reflect the cost of installing intercept devices and monitoring communications for the 2,043 authorizations
for which reports included cost data. The average cost
of intercept devices installed in 2007 was $48,477,
down 7 percent from the average cost in 2006. For
federal wiretaps for which expenses were reported
in 2007, the average cost was $65,660, a 2 percent
decrease from the average cost in 2006. The average
cost of a state wiretap declined 7 percent to $43,584

Average Cost of Wiretaps (in Dollars)

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Calendar Year

11

in 2007. For additional information, see Appendix
Tables A-1 (federal) & B-1 (state).

business. Officials in the Western District of Missouri
reported that cellular telephone surveillance identified
several individuals who participated in the on-line
procurement of drugs via internet pharmacies.
At the state level, the New York City Special
Narcotics Bureau reported that a multi-state case,
involving a cellular telephone wiretap, resulted in the
seizure of 123 kilos of cocaine in Boston, Massachusetts, with the arrest of 5 individuals. In a separate
narcotics investigation, the New York City Special
Narcotics Bureau reported that 13 related cellular telephone wiretaps resulted in the seizure of $2.7 million
and the indictment of 9 individuals. The District Attorney in Los Angeles, California, reported that interceptions obtained from a cellular telephone wiretap,
conducted over 57 days in a narcotics investigation,
resulted in the seizure of approximately 40 pounds of
methamphetamine, 4 kilos of cocaine, $700,000, and
the arrest of two persons.
Because criminal cases involving the use of
surveillance may still be under active investigation or
prosecution, the final results of many of the wiretaps
concluded in 2007 may not have been reported.
Prosecutors will report additional costs, arrests, trials,
motions to suppress evidence, and convictions related
directly to these intercepts in future supplementary
reports, which will be noted in Appendix Tables A-2
and B-2 of subsequent volumes of the Wiretap Report.

Arrests and Convictions
Table 6 presents the numbers of persons arrested
and convicted as a result of interceptions reported as
terminated in 2007. As of December 31, 2007, a total
of 4,830 persons had been arrested based on interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications,
10 percent more than in 2006. Wiretaps terminated
in 2007 resulted in the conviction of 984 persons as
of December 31, 2007, which was 20 percent of the
number of persons arrested. Federal wiretaps were responsible for 36 percent of the arrests and 24 percent
of the convictions arising from wiretaps during 2007.
The District of Colorado reported the most arrests
arising from a wiretap terminated in 2007; a wiretap
used in a narcotics investigation there yielded the arrest of 65 persons. A wiretap in Morris County, New
Jersey, which resulted in the most arrests of any state
intercept terminated in 2007, was the lead wiretap
of 13 intercepts authorized for a narcotics investigation that led to the arrest of 105 persons. The leader
among state intercepts in producing convictions was
a wiretap authorized in Queens County, New York,
for a narcotics investigation, which resulted in the
conviction of 48 of the 51 persons arrested. The
next-largest number of convictions reported to have
stemmed from a state wiretap occurred in San Diego
County, California, where the lead wiretap of 7 intercepts authorized in a narcotics investigation yielded
the conviction of 47 persons. The District of Arizona
reported the most convictions for any federal wiretap;
there the lead wiretap of 9 intercepts authorized in a
narcotics investigation produced convictions for all 26
persons arrested. A wiretap that was the lead wiretap
of 3 used in a transport investigation in the District
of Minnesota resulted in convictions for 18 of the 42
persons arrested.
Federal and state prosecutors often note the importance of electronic surveillance in obtaining arrests
and convictions. Surveillance of cellular telephone
communications lasted 30 days during a money
laundering investigation in the District of Nevada.
The reporting official stated that this wiretap allowed
identification of illegal activities and additional violations of law. The investigation has specifically targeted
multiple sources, including an internet gambling

Summary of Reports for Years
Ending December 31, 1997
Through 2007
Table 7 provides information on intercepts reported each year from 1997 to 2007. This table specifies the number of intercept applications requested,
authorized, and installed; the number of extensions
granted; the average length of original orders and extensions; the locations of intercepts; the major offenses investigated; average costs; and the average number
of persons intercepted, communications intercepted,
and incriminating intercepts. From 1997 to 2007, the
number of intercept applications authorized, by year
(as reported through 2007), increased 86 percent.
The majority of wiretaps consistently have been used
for drug crime investigations, which accounted for
81 percent of intercept applications in 2007. Be-

12

tween 1997 and 2007, the percentage of drug-related
wiretaps ranged from 72 percent to 81 percent of all
authorized applications.

Tables A-2 and B-2 provide detailed data from all
supplementary reports submitted.
During 2007, a total of 1,883 arrests, 2,013
convictions, and additional costs of $23,880,074
arose from and were reported for wiretaps completed
in previous years. Table 8 summarizes additional
prosecution activity by jurisdiction from supplemental
reports on intercepts terminated in the years noted.
Twenty-six percent of the supplemental reports of additional activity in 2007 involved wiretaps terminated
in 2006. Of all supplemental arrests, convictions, and
costs reported in 2007, intercepts concluded in 2006
led to 82 percent of arrests, 65 percent of convictions,
and 87 percent of expenditures. Table 9 reflects the
total number of arrests and convictions resulting from
intercepts terminated in calendar years 1997 through
2007.

Supplementary Reports
Under 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials
must file supplementary reports on additional court
or police activity occurring as a result of intercepts
reported in prior years. Because many wiretap orders
are related to large-scale criminal investigations that
cross county and state boundaries, supplementary
reports are necessary to fulfill reporting requirements.
Arrests, trials, and convictions resulting from these
interceptions often do not occur within the same year
in which the intercept was first reported. Appendix

13